Strong performers and successful reformers in PISA 2012 - Policy lessons for Norway

OECD EMPLOYER BRAND

Playbook

1

Strong performers andsuccessful reformersin PISA 2012Policy lessons for Norway

Andreas SchleicherOslo, 8 January 2014

Germany

France

Finland

Spain

Korea

Norway

US

240 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300

Test score literacy

A changing world – foundation skills

Avera

ge 1

6-2

4 y

ear-o

lds

Korea

Germany

Norway

Avera

ge 5

5-6

5 y

ear-o

lds

Spain

Finland

France

US

UK

Skills in the older generation

4 PISA in brief

• Over half a million students…– representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 65 countries/economies

… took an internationally agreed 2-hour test…– Goes beyond testing whether students can

reproduce what they were taught…… to assess students’ capacity to extrapolate from what they know

and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations– Mathematics, reading, science, problem-solving, financial literacy

… and responded to questions on…– their personal background, their schools

and their engagement with learning and school• Parents, principals and system leaders provided data on…

– school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences .

What do 15-year-old Norwegians know……and what can they do with what they know?

5

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

540

550

560

570

580Mean score

High mathematics performance

Low mathematics performance

… Shanghai-China performs above this line (613)

… 12 countries perform below this line

Average performanceof 15-year-olds in

MathematicsFig I.2.13

Socially equitable distribution of learning

opportunities

High mathematics performance

Low mathematics performance

Average performanceof 15-year-olds in

mathematics

Strong socio-economic impact on student

performance

02468101214161820222426

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US

Singapore

Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei

Macao-China

Liechtenstein

Viet Nam

Latvia

Russian Fed.Lithuania

Croatia

SerbiaRomania

Bulgaria United Arab Emirates

KazakhstanThailand

Malaysia

2012Shanghai-China


opportunities


performance468101214161820222426

AustraliaAustria

BelgiumCanada

Chile

Czech Rep.

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US

Singapore

Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei

Macao-China

Liechtenstein

Viet Nam

Latvia

Russian Fed.Lithuania

Croatia

SerbiaRomaniaBulgariaUnited Arab Emirates

KazakhstanThailand

Malaysia

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US

AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech Rep.DenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak Rep.SloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUKUS

2012


opportunities


performance

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US


Be

lgiu

m (

Fl.)

Po

rtu

ga

l

Sp

ain

Ge

rma

ny

Au

stri

a

No

rwa

y

Au

stra

lia

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Ire

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ca

na

da

Un

ite

d S

tate

s

Ita

ly

En

gla

nd

Ko

rea

Fin

lan

d

Ice

lan

d

Slo

ve

nia

Isra

el

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Po

lan

d

Tu

rke

y

Hu

ng

ary

Ch

ile

Slo

va

k R

ep

ub

lic

Est

on

ia

-3 000

-2 000

-1 000

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

Contribution of teachers' salary Contribution of instruction timeContribution of teaching time Contribution of estimated class size

US$

Composition of instructional costs

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US


AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US


Singapore

Shanghai

Singapore

2003 - 2012 Germany, Turkey and Mexico improved both their mathematics performance and equity levels

The dream of social mobility

In some countries it is close to a reality

14

15

Shang

hai-C

hina

Mac

ao-C

hina

Singa

pore

Chine

se T

aipe

i

Liec

hten

stein

Estoni

a

Polan

d

Finl

and

Portu

gal

Turk

ey Italy

Latvi

a

Austra

lia

Austri

a

Czech

Rep

ublic

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Fran

ce

Icela

nd

Russia

n Fe

d.

Croat

ia

Sweden

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Serbi

aIsr

ael

Roman

ia

Indo

nesia

Kazak

hsta

n

Brazil

Chile

Mon

tene

gro

Argen

tina

Peru

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

%

Percentage of resilient students

More than 10% resilient Between 5%-10% of resilient students Less than 5%

Fig II.2.4

It is not just about poor kids in poor neighbourhoods…

…but about many kids in many neighbourhoods

16

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60%

Percentage of top performersin mathematics

Tab I.2.1a

Across OECD, 13% of students are top performers (Level 5 or 6). They can develop and work with models for complex situations, and work strategically with advanced thinking and reasoning skillsIn Norway the percentage declined since 2003

18

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

*-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

medium-low level of prob-lem-solving

Low level of problem-solving

Medium-high level of prob-lem-solving

%• Evolution of employment in

occupational groups defined by problem-solving skills

Excellence matters

1919Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers

Catching up with the top-performers

Low impact on outcomes

High impact on outcomes

Low feasibility High feasibility

Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins

2020Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins

Commitment to universal achievement

Gateways, instructional systems

Capacity at point of delivery

Incentive structures and accountability

Resources where they yield most

A learning systemCoherence

2121Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve at high levels

Ambitious universal standards and personalization as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body

Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom

23 Motivation to learn mathematics

Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:

I enjoy reading about mathematics

I look forward to my mathematics lessons

I do mathematics because I enjoy it

I am interested in the things I learn in mathematics

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Norway Shanghai-China OECD average

%

Fig III.3.9

UKB

24Perceived self-responsibility for failure in mathematics

Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:

I’m not very good at solving mathematics problems

My teacher did not explain the concepts well this week

This week I made bad guesses on the quiz

Sometimes the course material is too hard

The teacher did not get students interested in the material

Sometimes I am just unlucky

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Norway Shanghai-China OECD average

%

Fig III.3.6

USB

The parent factorStudents whose parents have high educational expectations for them tend

to report more perseverance, greater intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics, and more confidence in their own ability to solve mathematics problems than students of similar background and academic performance,

whose parents hold less ambitious expectations for them.

25

26

Be

lgiu

m (

Fle

mis

h)

Ko

rea

Italy

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

-Ch

ina

Ch

ile

Po

rtu

ga

l

Hu

ng

ary

Cro

atia

Ma

cao

-Ch

ina

Me

xico

Ge

rma

ny

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Change in the index of intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics that is asso-ciated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree

Me

an

ind

ex

ch

an

ge

Parents’ high expectations can nurture students’ enjoyment in learning mathematics

Fig III.6.11

27

Po

rtu

ga

l

Italy

Be

lgiu

m (

Fle

mis

h)

Me

xico

Hu

ng

ary

Ch

ile

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

-Ch

ina

Ge

rma

ny

Cro

atia

Ko

rea

Ma

cao

-Ch

ina

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Change in the index of perseverance that is associated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree

Me

an

ind

ex

ch

an

ge

Parents’ high expectations can fosterperseverance in their child

Fig III.6.11

2828Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems

Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved)

High level of metacognitive content of instruction

2929Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Capacity at the point of delivery Attracting, developing and retaining high quality

teachers and school leaders and a work organisation in which they can use their potential

Instructional leadership and human resource management in schools

Keeping teaching an attractive profession System-wide career development …

3030Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Incentives, accountability, knowledge management Aligned incentive structures

For students How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives

operating on students at each stage of their education Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well

For teachers Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation Improve their own performance

and the performance of their colleagues Pursue professional development opportunities

that lead to stronger pedagogical practices A balance between vertical and lateral accountability Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread

innovation – communication within the system and with stakeholders around it

A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act

Less school autonomy

More school autonomy

455

460

465

470

475

480

485

No standardised math policy

Standardised math policy

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies

Score points

School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's extent of implementing a standardised math policy (e.g. curriculum and instructional materials)

Fig IV.1.16

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements

Less school autonomy

More school autonomy

464

466

468

470

472

474

476

478

School data not public

School data public

Score points

School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's level of posting achievement data publicly

Fig IV.1.16

36

Written specification of the school's curriculum and educational goals

Written specification of student-performance standards

Systematic recording of data, including teacher and student attendance and graduation rates, test results and professional development of teachers

Internal evaluation/self-evaluation

External evaluation

Written feedback from students (e.g. regarding lessons, teachers or resources)

Teacher mentoring

Regular consultation with one or more experts over a period of at least six months with the aim of improving the school

Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement:

Norway Singapore OECD average

%

Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14

3737Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Investing resources where they can make mostof a difference

Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms)

Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes

3939Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Coherence of policies and practices Alignment of policies

across all aspects of the system Coherence of policies

over sustained periods of time Consistency of implementation Fidelity of implementation

(without excessive control)

4040Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







4141Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers Some students learn at high levels

All students need to learn at high levels

Student inclusion

Routine cognitive skills, rote learning

Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways

of workingCurriculum, instruction and assessment

Few years more than secondary

High-level professional knowledge workers

Teacher quality

‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical

Flat, collegial

Work organisation

Primarily to authorities

Primarily to peers and stakeholders

Accountability

What it all means

Average education systems High performers

Good to excellent health

Being Employed

High levels of trust

Participation in volunteer activities

High levels of political efficacy

High wages1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Average Norway

Likelihood of positive social and economic outcomes among highly literate adults

(scoring at Level 4/5 compared with those scoring at Level 1 or below)

Odds ratio

Thank you !

Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org• All national and international publications• The complete micro-level database

Email: [email protected]: SchleicherEDU

and remember:Without data, you are just another person with an opinion

Strong performers and successful reformers in PISA 2012 - Policy lessons for Norway

Education

Transcript of Strong performers and successful reformers in PISA 2012 - Policy lessons for Norway